The Virtual Interview: Edward Snowden

Okay, then releasing the names of our clandestine operatives on foreign soil is something you agree to.

I get it.

You are like a child with no understanding of any abstract ideas. Plans are worth more than any technology and you don’t see direct consequences for years.

When the W88 was “stolen” during the Clinton era, it still took China years to field their first version. You should look it up—you may find another idol to hang on your wall next to Snowden.

I see you like to deal with non-sequitors.

I read what you wrote, but you have nothing to back up what your saying.

If China, Russia and the Whole world knows about it..., then why are you still saying “it’s a secret”? LOL!

What you fail to understand is that by allowing the Supreme Law of the land, The U.S. Constitution, to be usurped with no accountability..., then you are inviting Tyranny.

It’s that attitude of why Border Patrol agents were killed in the Fast and the Furious. It’s that attitude of why a U.S. diplomat and Navy Seals were killed in Benghazi. It’s that attitude why we had the IRS scandal. Shall I continue????

I do not understand why it’s so difficult for you to connect the dots of where that attitude will ultimately lead you.

Do you honestly believe this country is on the right path since 911? Do you really want to be known as the people that brought Tyranny to the United States?

You can do your best to bend this any way you like.

At the end of the day this guy screwed up big-time.

He is not a national hero. He is a traitor.

He dumped massive amounts of information with no regard for national security, the lives of people working on behalf of the United States overseas, or anything else.

If his motives were altruistic, he could have taken care. It didn’t matter to him.

He didn’t reveal this to a public official, a local state or federal police agency. He didn’t release it to a judge.

He released it to the media. That’s right, the MSM.

Now, what do we know about the MSM around the world?

Yes, this guy is a real hero. /s

How is that related to Snowden exposing the NSA for breaking the law????

You still have failed to site a source.

The government won’t even pinpoint individual situations this guy compromised. They don’t want to confirm or deny anything. So asking me to tell you which exact agent was harmed, or which specific operation had been ongoing for years at the time it was compromised, or how many years or decades this set us back is pointless. Nobody is going to know but the individual agencies involved.

None the less, here you are defending this guy like he’s a saint or something. He isn’t. He’s wing-nut traitor.

What is this nonsense you’re tossing out about Russia, China, and the whole world knowing things. Is it your opinion that Russia and China know every agent and operation that is on station or in the works today?

Why would you go to these lengths to defend a traitor?

Who stated the U. S. Constitution should be allowed to be usurped? Please point out the post where I advocated that be done. Failing that, your attempt to pull this into a Constitutionality issue is mute.

This guy could have contacted any of a number of agencies in this nation. He could have found the most Conservative individual around on Capital Hill, and contacted them. Just flopping it out there to the press is how you would have handled it? Really?

And please, explain to me how the Constitution was protected by releasing the names and of people and operations overseas.

Okay, so now I’m all for border agents getting killed, people dying at Benghazi, the IRS scandal... Shall you continue? Why not. Out your logic all you want.

I hadn’t realized that if all this had been given to the MSM earlier, it would have prevented the IRS scandals, Benghazi, Fast and Furious... Good freakin grief. This is what you think?

As for your connect the dot exercise, ouch.

Yep, if only Snowden had released quicker, 09/11 wouldn’t have happened. /s

Yikes...

What clandestine operations would we have if every individual working for them decided to be a Snowden?

Here's a better question: do we need those clandestine operations — namely the ones which bring a conflict of conscience to those who honor the Constitution?

To put the question in different terms: would you hold it against me if I said one big reason for me letting my enlistment terminate was because it was obvious that the Army had no intention of as-an-organization honoring the oath of enlistment/office? (To be specific, they had no intention of seeing that the Natural Born Citizen requirement was upheld — the Constitution places the President as Commander-in-Chief, but it also places restrictions on who can qualify to be President… logically, if one is barred from being President then he cannot be Commander-in-Chief. In that case, since in the military authority flows through the chain of command, there would be no authority at all unless it was pursuant obligations of the Constitution itself: that is, Art 4, Sec 4.)

A good explanation of that is here.

And that’s the only question that needs to be asked if we indeed need these agencies.
This guy didn’t got to a Senator, a Congressman, the President, a Judge, a police agency of any sort.

And given the reactions of each of those entities to the NSA's domestic espionage it seems like that was a good call.
Do you honestly believe that he would have been safe in the country if he had gone to one of those?

He spilled it to our enemies.
This guy either did it with evil intent, or he is one of the most naive individuals ever to exist.

Sometimes you have to go live with your enemies in order to stay alive. (Re: David and the Philistines.)

Treason:

US Constitution, Article III Section 3

It's cite a source, btw...

So your proof is that certified on the record liars have told you this... So it must be true. LOL!

You keep saying something happened...., but then you have no PROOF!??? LOL!

That defense would not hold up well in a court of law. If you are going to start making accusations..... You have to back it up with evidence. If you do not, then you are bearing false witness with nothing to back up your claim.

Yes I believe in the rule of law. I believe The U.S. Constitution IS The Supreme Law of The Land.
NO ONE... is above it.

You said China and Russia know..... Since it's no longer a secret then say what did he did???

“Who stated the U. S. Constitution should be allowed to be usurped”

You did..... You said it was bad the Snowden exposed the NSA usurping the U.S. Constitution. How is that bad???

Now you are acting like the NSA never admired to illegally spying on Americans. This is old news. I guess you missed that part where James Clapper lied, under oath, about the illegal spying on all Americans... including congress and it's oversight committee???

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/02/james-clapper-apologizes-for-lying-to-congress-about-nsa-surveillance-clearly-erroneous/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/01/27/darrell-issa-james-clapper-lied-to-congress-about-nsa-and-should-be-fired/

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/01/nsa-pretty-much-admits-spying-congress.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/01/nsa-surveillance-loophole-americans-data

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2050100/nsa-admits-employees-spied-on-loved-ones.html

http://www.cnet.com/news/nsa-spying-flap-extends-to-contents-of-u-s-phone-calls/

See I provide evidence to back up what I am saying. You have not other than saying you believe the people that admitted they lied.

Yeah that makes A LOT of sense.....(sarcasm off)

Wow that’s interesting. You are having a cognitive disconnect moment.

Here I am defending the U.S. Constitution, and you keep excusing the government usurping it. Then you site it. LOL!

Priceless....

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.” ― Marcus Tullius Cicero

What clandestine operations would we have if every individual working for them decided to be a Snowden?

Here's a better question: do we need those clandestine operations — namely the ones which bring a conflict of conscience to those who honor the Constitution?

Well... it's a good question, but only if the question rightly addresses what took place. Did Snowden only release information regarding agents who were in positions where their was a conflict of conscience? Your comeback could address the idea that anyone serving in a nation with an illegitimate POTOS would be in such a conflict. I would submit that if all such people immediately stood down, it could cause massive problems. A national exposure to immediate attack could come about. Are we better off with foreign occupation, or our outposts overseas over-run, our Navy, Air Force, and Army unable to function?

To put the question in different terms: would you hold it against me if I said one big reason for me letting my enlistment terminate was because it was obvious that the Army had no intention of as-an-organization honoring the oath of enlistment/office? (To be specific, they had no intention of seeing that the Natural Born Citizen requirement was upheld — the Constitution places the President as Commander-in-Chief, but it also places restrictions on who can qualify to be President… logically, if one is barred from being President then he cannot be Commander-in-Chief. In that case, since in the military authority flows through the chain of command, there would be no authority at all unless it was pursuant obligations of the Constitution itself: that is, Art 4, Sec 4.)

No, as an individual I would respect your thoughts on it. I do believe you sometimes have to do the best you can in a sticky situation tough. Let me ask you this. Do you think the nation's armed forces are better off if every person that is lucid enough to grasp this situation as you have, quits? Doesn't that leave only the idiots behind? Aren't those idiot more likely to simply follow through and do anything that is asked of them?

This is really an example of a two-edged sword here.

A good explanation of that is here.

And that’s the only question that needs to be asked if we indeed need these agencies. This guy didn’t got to a Senator, a Congressman, the President, a Judge, a police agency of any sort.

And given the reactions of each of those entities to the NSA's domestic espionage it seems like that was a good call. Do you honestly believe that he would have been safe in the country if he had gone to one of those?

Is he safe now? Is the nation safer now? Are our agents overseas safer? Are we going to get the best intel we could considering the global dynamics today?

Not only did this guy undermine us, he undermined our allies as well. How do you think that sits with their clandestine agencies? Think they'll be as forthcoming with us as they were in the past?

He spilled it to our enemies. This guy either did it with evil intent, or he is one of the most naive individuals ever to exist.

Sometimes you have to go live with your enemies in order to stay alive. (Re: David and the Philistines.)

Living with them is one thing. Pulling out the family album and telling them where every member of your family lives, and at what time they'll be certain places probably isn't a good idea.

I appreciate the arguments made. You raise valid points. I'm just not sure where the nation goes if those points are acted on.

Treason:
US Constitution, Article III Section 3

Which reads:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Now, we agree that Snowden did not wage war on the several states — so let's exclude that and move on to the other condition:
adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort

That's a bit more arguable — you assert that taking the info to Asia qualifies, others do not saying that there's no single incident to which the government can or will point as being compromised — Now in order to secure a conviction of Treason, by the Constitution, such would have to be explicitly revealed in court to qualify as the overt act.

Now, there are people in our government that surly qualify for Treason: just look at the refusal to stop the invasion on our southern borders. That is aiding and providing comfort to the enemies of several States.

So your proof is that certified on the record liars have told you this... So it must be true. LOL! You keep saying something happened...., but then you have no PROOF!??? LOL! That defense would not hold up well in a court of law. If you are going to start making accusations..... You have to back it up with evidence. If you do not, then you are bearing false witness with nothing to back up your claim.

All well and good, except there is no way for anyone outside of government to know exactly where agents and operations were compromised. Is there? No. So what you have done is ask a question nobody could provide the information to, and then declare yourself to be the winner because it wasn't provided. That may work with some folks. It doesn't with me.

As a general rule, do you think it's a good idea to leak the names, locations, and operations of our clandestine operatives overseas? Isn't that what we generally consider to the be act of a traitor? Here you actually defend it.

Why is it okay when Edward Snowden commits acts of treason?

Yes I believe in the rule of law. I believe The U.S. Constitution IS The Supreme Law of The Land.
NO ONE... is above it.

And yet when it is against the law to reveal the names of our clandestine operatvies and operations overseas, you don't mind the law being broken at all do you.

Isn't the military and clandestine operations overseas the perview of the federal government? Isn't that fully Constitutional? Yes, it is. So don't preach to me about your support of the Constitution, when you are clearly only selectively in support of the Constitution.

You said China and Russia know..... Since it's no longer a secret then say what did he did???

I believe you are the one who introduced China and Russia comments. I never said that Russia and China knew who all our operatives and operations were prior to the Snowden dump.

“Who stated the U. S. Constitution should be allowed to be usurped”

You did..... You said it was bad the Snowden exposed the NSA usurping the U.S. Constitution. How is that bad???

Please link me to a post where I said his releasing information on the NSA collection of data was bad. I specifically addressed his information dump on other matters.

You see, if Snowden had limited his leaks to the NSA and domestic spying, you and I wouldn't be having this discussion.

If a guy goes out and rescues two people in a fire, does that exhonerate him from starting a fire that burns up two others?

Snowden is a traitor. There's no other word for what he did. And you know what, as bad as these government agencies are in some instances, and as much as they do lie, the last I heard treason pretty well tarnishs just about any good deed.

Now you are acting like the NSA never admired to illegally spying on Americans. This is old news. I guess you missed that part where James Clapper lied, under oath, about the illegal spying on all Americans... including congress and it's oversight committee???

No, but then I didn't defend him as you are Snowden. Even if he did lie, and I believe he did, was it treason?

I don't defend James Clapper's non-treasonous actions, and you do Snowden's clearly treasonous actions.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/02/james-clapper-apologizes-for-lying-to-congress-about-nsa-surveillance-clearly-erroneous/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/01/27/darrell-issa-james-clapper-lied-to-congress-about-nsa-and-should-be-fired/

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/01/nsa-pretty-much-admits-spying-congress.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/01/nsa-surveillance-loophole-americans-data

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2050100/nsa-admits-employees-spied-on-loved-ones.html

http://www.cnet.com/news/nsa-spying-flap-extends-to-contents-of-u-s-phone-calls/

See I provide evidence to back up what I am saying. You have not other than saying you believe the people that admitted they lied.

All related to NSA domestic spying. This is something I didn't defend. Good or bad, the dumping of the NSA information does not exhonerate Snowden from the actions that expose him to being charged with treason. Yeah that makes A LOT of sense.....(sarcasm off)

Well, not really, but then you're chasing your tail here.

Are we better off with foreign occupation, or our outposts overseas over-run, our Navy, Air Force, and Army unable to function?

Should we even be overseas?
I don't think there's compelling reason that we should be involved — short actual, declared war. (As opposed to police-actions and fake wars.)

The only exception I can think of is Japan — as our surrender-terms forbade them from having a [real] Army/Navy/military we are morally obligated to defend them.

Do you think the nation's armed forces are better off if every person that is lucid enough to grasp this situation as you have, quits?

The only reason I quit was because as an E4 I had zero power to change things, and if I tried I would not be supported by my superiors, but crushed by them.
I would much rather have been able to stand on principle against trashing the Constitution, or standing aside and letting it be trashed.

Doesn't that leave only the idiots behind? Aren't those idiot more likely to simply follow through and do anything that is asked of them?

Well, I would like to think that if there were a significant portion that was lucid enough to grasp this situation this would be a non-issue; as it is, I simply don't know. Staying in when you can be compelled to act against your conscience isn't a comfortable feeling and certainly isn't conducive to being battle-ready.

Is he safe now? Is the nation safer now? Are our agents overseas safer? Are we going to get the best intel we could considering the global dynamics today?

He's safer than had he stayed here. I think the nation is not safer now, but I don't think it's less safe either; he merely revealed how unsafe it is in actuality — perhaps that will prompt us to change things (all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed). Perhaps.

I'm not sure having agents overseas is entirely a good thing — it might be better to rely more on overt and official presence (diplomats) than on secret agents. I would not be opposed to abolishing all civil intel agencies and having only military intel agencies. (The Constitution does not authorize security and intelligence agencies, but it does authorize an Army and Navy.)
As for global dynamics — I don't know. Certainly there's more to worry about here than in the vague out there.

I appreciate the arguments made. You raise valid points. I'm just not sure where the nation goes if those points are acted on.

Thank you.
Well, I do think things would be radically different if we actually followed the Constitution.

One person’s treason doesn’t exclude another’s. It’s a dicey situation to prove treason when dealing with classified information. If a person disclososes information of a top secret nature, the entire process must be classified. That’s really the quandary with Snowden.

The greater amount of materials are technical in nature and constitute material support of our nation’s enemies. His disclosure or Constitutional invasions of privacy are a small part and give a seeming basis of defense. The problem with that approach is that it disregards the nature of the greater portion of the stolen materials and his methods of disclosure.

Playing out my allegory, if I were in possession of knowledge of biological warfare, I would prepare a case to be presented to Congress and other authorities who have the clearance, authority and responsibility to investigate such activities. Of course, any such actions would provide actionable evidence against the whistle blower, and would necessitate proper operational and protective countermeasures against personal retribution. Obviously, it is life and death, but there are still ways to works within the confines of the law. If there are truly no people in the government who could be trusted to pursue such matters, then truly the country is beyond salvation.

I cannot tell you Snowden’s motivation, but only judge his actions. His actions are not those of a concerned patriot who puts country over self, but a coward who is willing to compromise his country for personal gain.

Everyone with clearance knows the definition:

Top Secret classification level “shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.”

It it not up to the general worker to decide when and how such material is disclosed and the unauthorized disclosure of such material does not constitute declassification. Even if I knew of a direct, now public, source, I cannot, by law and by oath, direct someone to it.

The rot extends everywhere. There are no more good guys and bad guys. We have different groups that have different methods to putting their boots on our throats. I am all for putting snowden on trial for treason. I would put him in line at the 10,000 spot. There are much bigger fish that need to fry. I don’t and will not fall for their misdirection with one guy. The rot goes to the core! Pull that core out into the street and let’s start this house cleaning or STFU about 1 guy.

My thoughts about being overseas these days, is related to the only thing worse, not being overseas.

Do we want Russia and China resolving issues in the Middle-East, making the government level social connections that would see them dominate global dynamics from the very moment with withdrew?

Some people think they would like to try that. You don't develop the global clout we have overnight. If we withdraw, we would never again be the global power we are today. Every overseas base would be Russian, Chinese, perhaps Indian, or ISIS owned and operated.

Even Israel would have to abadon us for a new protector, if they could find one. If they couldn't we would have to fight our way to Israel past a number of nations who would have other allies by that time. We would be a global nothing.

I wasn't going to give you a hard time about your decision, because only you knew what contributed to it in total. Even if I didn't agree with your actions, you have to do what makes sense to you. I can see why you did it. In your position I think you did the best you could.

Even under an Obama, we still need a military. I don't like the guy. I think he's our enemy. He will leave the White House. At that point our next real president needs to have a functional military. I am hoping a Cruz-like individual can get in there and clean house.

I don't believe Snowden's damage was negligable. I believe people and operations were comprimised. The relations between nations was clearly damaged. When it was revealed that our government spied on other governments and entities, it took a big hit. Yes other nations do it. Do other nations have specific instances of it word for word in global newspapers? Think that didn't cause us problems with other nations? I think it did. What organization is going to be as forthcoming with details, if they can't count on those details remaining secret? This was a nightmare all around.

Okay, then you'd let Hillary and the diplomats take care of intelligence gathering. I'm not buying into that. No freaken way.

Yes, you can claim that the Constitution does not spell out clandestine operations. It doesn't cover the CIA or the NSA. As long as these agencies are focused on intelligence gathering overseas, or specific terrorist related operations here, I think it is reasoned to think they are covered under the greater Military concept. Do I want the miltary running operations domestically? No. Obviously if there's a massive incident the national guard would need to come in, but other than that, the military should remain a foreign soil specific agency, unless we are fighting a war on our own soil.

What the NSA did was wrong. Vetting this president, didn't happen.

With regard to these things, I agree that we did not follow the Constitution. Some people should go to prison for a long stay over it. Those things should be addressed. They should not be allowed to continue.

I believe that someday, someone will give him the umbrella treatment. That’s what the Ruskies do when you’re no longer of use to them. He is a dupe.